On 23rd March Matt Campbell of Sussex, United Kingdom, will go to court against the BBC and will claim that the BBC is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation in the way that they have covered up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence relating to the murder of his brother Geoff. Geoff Campbell was killed while inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001. Mr Campbell will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been wilfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.

Representing Mr Campbell’s case against the BBC is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz who has represented a number of well-known public figures such as Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricketer captain turned politician, Herbie Hide the former 2 time World Heavyweight boxing champion and a number of other internationally well-known artists, singers and sportsmen. Mr Aziz also advised British Film Director Tony Rooke at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013 for his similar case against the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 evidence. That particular court case between Mr Rooke and the BBC was attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe where they witnessed Mr Rooke achieve a partial victory against the BBC.

Mr Campbell will also be calling on the support of a number of expert witnesses.

See below for further details of this court case.

Legal details of Mr Campbell’s court case
Mr Campbell claims that the BBC is refusing to inform the public of incontrovertible scientific evidence relating to free fall acceleration during the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, and the BBC appears to be supporting a cover up of the true events of that day. He is therefore pleading "Not Guilty" to having an appropriate TV licence as he has ''reasonable cause” to suspect that by funding the BBC through his TV Licence Fees he would be supporting the purposes of terrorism and he would be guilty of breaking the law under Article 15 Section 3 of the Terrorism Act.

He will also claim that the BBC is guilty of an offence under Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended by Section 117 of Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Under Section 38B(2) of the TA 2000 if a person without reasonable excuse, fails to disclose information falling within Section 38B(1). A person may commit this offence through total inactivity (by not answering police questions or by not volunteering information), through the partial suppression of information, or by relating a false account when the true facts are known.

The cover-up of 9/11 evidence and Geoff Campbell’s murder
Mr Campbell’s brother, Geoff, was on business in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 when the tower was struck by an aircraft and later collapsed killing everyone who was still inside. The official reason provided for the collapse of both the Twin Towers that day was that fire resulting from the crashed airliners caused a weakening of the structure of the buildings which eventually led to their complete collapse. The official explanation given to Mr Campbell for who was responsible for the aircraft hitting the North Tower was that it was due to Al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked the aircraft and then deliberately flew it into the tower, and that therefore it was the alleged Al Qaeda hijackers who were responsible for the murder of Mr Campbell’s brother.

However, over the last several years Mr Campbell has been conducting a detailed investigation into the death of his brother and has come up with some startling information and evidence which he believes casts huge doubts about the official explanation he has been provided with for his brother’s murder. Through Mr Campbell’s own investigations, as well as the scientific analysis of dozens of professional physicists, architects, engineers, demolition experts, and other scientists, Mr Campbell, as well as thousands of professional and technical experts, believes that both the Twin Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7 (a 47 storey tower not hit by an aircraft) collapsed as a result of controlled, explosive, demolition, rather than from fires from the crashed aircraft. If Mr Campbell’s assertion is correct then it creates a very different picture about what really took place on 9/11, who was potentially involved, and who was actually responsible for his brother’s murder.

Mr Campbell’s court case against the BBC is based upon the allegation that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been deliberately withholding the available evidence which supposedly proves his belief that the three towers were brought down through controlled demolition. Mr Campbell claims that numerous professional experts from around the world and more than 500 members of the public have provided detailed evidence and written requests to the BBC demanding that they adhere to their Editorial Guidelines and their Royal Charter and show the public what he claims is incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence. He claims that this evidence proves beyond any doubt that his brother Geoff was murdered in a way that is very different to what he has been told by government officials and by the coroner. Mr Campbell aims to present to the court in Sussex evidence showing that the BBC has been deliberately covering up this vital information from the public.

Mr Campbell believes that by covering up this evidence the BBC are supporting those terrorists to get away with their crime which included the murder of his brother. Therefore, according to Mr Campbell, to pay his TV Licence Fee to the BBC would in fact be a criminal act according to Section 15, Article 3 of the Terrorism Act. Mr Campbell believes that he has a situation of conflict of law whereby he is prepared to continue paying his TV Licence Fee, but not if it goes to the BBC, because to provide funds to the BBC would be to provide funds to an organisation that is supporting an act of terrorism, according to Mr Campbell and his lawyers.

Evidence to support Mr Campbell’s allegation of controlled demolition
The following are some of the points of evidence that Mr Campbell cites as supporting the allegation that the three towers that collapsed on 9/11 collapsed due to controlled, explosive demolition. This is not a complete list of Mr Campbell’s evidence:

1. Confirmed free fall of WTC Building 7
World Trade Centre Building 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds (105 feet/8 stories) as confirmed in 2008 by the official investigators NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). This means that at least 8 stories of the building collapsed with absolutely zero structural resistance within them, and that all 80 of the core steel columns, and all of the steel beam cross connections for those 8 stories had to have been completely severed, all within a split second of each other in order to achieve the perfectly symmetrical free fall collapse that is seen in WTC Building 7. The only thing that can achieve this is controlled-demolition using carefully placed explosives and perfectly timed detonation. Controlled Demolition of a high rise tower cannot be prepared within a few hours. It takes weeks or months to plan and implement

2. BBC foreknowledge of the unprecedented collapse of WTC Building 7
Apart from the three towers that collapsed on 9/11, no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire in history, either before or since 9/11. High rise towers are designed specifically so that this cannot happen. However on that day the BBC reported on live television that WTC Building 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. While the buildings collapse was being reported to the world by a BBC journalist, the fully intact building could still be seen standing in the background in what appeared to be a relatively uncompromised state and no obvious fires of any consequence. This footage is still available to see on YouTube. This would suggest that someone likely knew that the building was going to come down in a controlled manner and that the BBC reporter had inadvertently been given this information a little too early.

How did anyone know that the building was going to collapse as a result of simple office fires, as is NIST’s official explanation, when fire has never caused this to happen to any other building in history, apart from on that day, and it is physically impossible for fires to reach even close to the required temperature to even begin to weaken steel? Why did the BBC not actively investigate where that foreknowledge of collapse came from and inform the police or investigators, and the public? How did the source of that information know that the building was going to come down if a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is impossible from office fires and is unprecedented in history?

3. The BBC’s misinformation & refusal to notify the public about critical and incontrovertible evidence
In 2007 the BBC ran a documentary which claimed that despite what hundreds of professional engineers, physicists, demolition experts, and scientists were claiming about free fall of WTC Building 7, they were in fact wrong and there was no free fall of WTC Building 7. Even after NIST, the official investigators, officially confirmed the existence of free fall in 2008 the BBC has refused to comply with the requirements of their own Editorial Guidelines and publicly correct their error about this absolutely vital issue. This is despite a number of professional experts and more than 500 members of the public making written requests in 2012 to the BBC for them to do so. The BBC still has not corrected this error and still has not informed the public of the quite incredible fact that in 2008 NIST officially confirmed the existence of free fall of WTC Building 7, which can only occur through controlled demolition.

In addition to this, a great deal more incontrovertible evidence supporting the controlled demolition of the three towers has been forwarded to the BBC by numerous professional experts and hundreds of the public, but the BBC has refused to show this evidence to the public. This includes eye witness testimonies from 118 first responder fire fighters on 9/11 who reported hearing or seeing explosions going off in all three towers. These eye witness reports were originally suppressed by the US government, but were later forced to be released through the Freedom of Information Act.

4. BBC deliberately misleading the public with biased and inaccurate reporting
Despite having hundreds of people demanding that the BBC show the evidence described above, the BBC has refused to do this and have instead shown documentaries which are seemingly designed only to smear and discredit the reputation of the professional individuals and organisations bringing this evidence forward, and the BBC has instead presented information that is based on methodology that runs in direct contradiction to the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines for providing accurate and impartial information. This has included such things as removing the sounds of huge explosions going off in WTC Building 7 moments before it collapsed during one of the BBC’s documentaries which was examining the claims of hundreds of professional experts that WTC Building 7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled demolition. Why would the BBC remove these sounds of explosions going off in a documentary aimed specifically at examining the claims that the collapse of the towers on 9/11 may have been due to explosives?

Mr Campbell and his support team will be asking these questions and more in the upcoming court case._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Thanks to you, we have raised the funds needed to cover the legal expenses for my forthcoming libel suit against the Danish newspaper Weekendavisen.

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this unbelievable show of generosity. Your support is deeply moving, and it gives me great encouragement as I go forward. I am honored that so many of you contributed and will be paying close attention to what happens.

On March 12, 2015 – one week from today – I will appear in Danish High Court to argue before a three-judge panel that Søren K. Villemoes of Weekendavisen was without factual basis in labeling me a “crackpot” and comparing me to creationists and Holocaust deniers. This offense makes him guilty of libel under Danish law. I will present as evidence in my case the video of WTC 7’s destruction, a WTC dust sample, and testimony from two expert witnesses. If you would like to know more about the case, I encourage you to watch this recent interview with me at the Danish Royal Library.

I hope that my case will serve as a significant step forward in our efforts to break down the wall of resistance to 9/11 Truth. I am eternally grateful to you, our remarkably dedicated community of activists, for making this possible.

Onward to the Danish High Court!

Niels Harrit_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The video evidence submitted for the first UK court case involving the blatant cover up of 9/11. Centred on WTC7 and the total failure of The BBC to broadcast the now admitted free-fall of the 47 storey reinforced structure by NIST, which incontrovertibly proves a controlled demolition with no other possible explanation plus the total breach of BBC guidelines and charter by way of silence, propaganda and public deception.

On 23rd March Matt Campbell of Sussex, United Kingdom, will go to court against the BBC and will claim that the BBC is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation in the way that they have covered up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence relating to the murder of his brother Geoff. Geoff Campbell was killed while inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001. Mr Campbell will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been wilfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.

Representing Mr Campbell’s case against the BBC is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz who has represented a number of well-known public figures such as Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricketer captain turned politician, Herbie Hide the former 2 time World Heavyweight boxing champion and a number of other internationally well-known artists, singers and sportsmen. Mr Aziz also advised British Film Director Tony Rooke at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013 for his similar case against the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 evidence. That particular court case between Mr Rooke and the BBC was attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe where they witnessed Mr Rooke achieve a partial victory against the BBC.

It's quite complicated, but interestingly means the 'Security Services' are Core customers, and one of the BBC's Mandatory functions is to monitor the world's output for the Security Services (or that's how it appears to me).

I don't know if this is 'Common Knowledge' amongst people, or if it can be used in further campaigns for BBC accountability and integrity._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'I knew with certainty that the BBC and official line of a lone gunman being responsible for the Tunisian attacks was a lie, because one of the victims of one of the “other” gunmen was my dear niece Kirsty.
We had a terrible day of the attack, because for hours Kirsty was simply missing. I was the whole day on the phone to the FCO and Tunisian authorities, and we feared the worst. My brothers Neil (Kirsty’s dad) and Stuart managed to get out to Tunisia that very day. The only thought that we had was Kirsty’s safety. Thankfully she has been (strange to say in the circumstances) miraculously lucky in the path of the bullets. Many others were less fortunate. Radley also was less fortunate. I know how the families must feel of others, and there are some who even now are suffering the agony of no confirmation of disappeared relatives. 12 hours of that were bad enough.
I was however simply astonished by the utter incompatibility of my knowledge of what actually happened, to the lone gunman line being pumped out by the BBC (I am in Ghana and not seeing other UK media). Every hour I kept expecting the lone gunman nonsense to be corrected, but instead the line hardened and was earnestly discussed and promoted by more and more BBC presenters and experts, despite being entirely untrue. It felt very weird to have direct personal access to the knowledge they were lying in this way; even though I saw it from the inside for years as a British diplomat.
We are a large and close family and tough, as Kirsty exemplifies. Kirsty has the love and support she will need after this traumatic experience. Now she is safely back and speaking to the UK media, I can acknowledge the connection with pride. It is, incidentally, a striking example of the stupidity of random terrorism. Kirsty was a leader in the series of school pupil walkouts in opposition to the war in Iraq.
I thought I might update this with a picture of me with Neil and Stuart and Haward, just to be cheerful.'

It's worth while keeping an eye on Craig Murray's blog; he doesn't run with 9/11 & 'Conspiracy Theories', but one can slip a reference in now and again!!

I recommend Craig's two books, 'Murder in Samarkand' and The Catholic Orangemen of Togo'; the latter's printer pulled out, due to Brit. mercenary Tim Spicer threatening legal action if they printed it, but both are available now:

The Catholic Orangemen of Togo

'I have been obliged to self-publish my new book, The Catholic Orangemen of Togo (and Other Conflicts I Have Known), because legal threats from mercenary commander Tim Spicer scared off my publisher: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/Schillings.pdf.

I have accordingly decided to make it available free online from 12 January 2009 as a PDF hosted on over a hundred different websites, in almost thirty different jurisdictions. I have, however, had physical books printed for those who wish (and purchased carbon offset). I hope to get copies into bookstores shortly, though this is difficult. It is available from Amazon.co.uk for just £12.49._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Geoff Campbell died during the 9/11 attacks and now his brother wants the inquest to be re-opened
Geoff Campbell, 31, was thought to have been on the 106th floor of World Trade Centre tower one on September 11 2001 when it was hit by a hijacked plane.

He had just got engaged to his Bostonian girlfriend Caroline Burbank, and had bought an apartment in Manhattan, although they were eventually planning to live in England.

After the attacks, there was initially no trace of Geoff.

However, in 2002 some bone fragments emerged and were DNA matched and a small piece of scalp was later found.

Hair from those remains was taken for a locket for Geoff’s mother, Maureen.

For years Geoff’s brother Matt kept his concerns about the official version of events too himself but after his own personal international investigation he wants to raise awareness about the lack of hard evidence.

Former City IT consultant Matt, 47, said: “After 15 years there are still so many unanswered questions.

“Unfortunately, there are still too many gaps so I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there needs to be a new inquest.

“Ideally, I would like a public inquiry but that seems unlikely.

“I have a meeting with lawyers soon and a request will be going to the Attorney General to refer the matter to the High Court.

“Hopefully, the High Court will agree that the inquest should be re-opened.”

Geoff was thought to have been on the 106th floor of World Trade Centre tower one on 9/11

After 15 years there are still so many unanswered questions
Matt now lives a quiet life as a reflexologist with his wife and three children in Sussex, but devotes a large part of his life trying to get basic questions answered.

“There is so much information out there on the internet which is so wrong, so many theories that I try very hard to focus on just fundamental evidence,” he said.

“I thought my simple request to the FBI to see the flight manifests of American Airlines 11 would be agreed to but I have been refused permission all the time.

“All I have asked for is the evidence that these five men were actually on the flight manifest, without it the official case falls apart from the outset.”

The official version of events is that Al Qaeda leader Mohammed Atta and four others hijacked the jet shortly after it took off from Boston en route to Los Angeles.

The group stabbed several stewardesses and killed another passenger in their battle to take over the plane.

Atta is actually heard on tape telling anxious passengers not to do anything stupid, before he takes over the controls and flies it into the building.

13 horrifying acts of terrorism we will never forget
Mon, June 22, 2015
Some of the most horrifying terrorist attacks of all time from 9/11 to Mumbai, these murderous acts killed several thousands of people and caused millions of pounds of damage to properties worldwide.

9/11, September 11th bombings in 2001 is one of the worst and most murderous attack to date. Two hijacked planes were crashed into the Twin Towers of The World Trade Center in New York City, killing 2,800 people

Mecca, the home of Islam's holiest sites was attacked on 20th November 1979 by Moslem gunmen killing 153 and wounding 560 innocent people, all arrested gunmen were later executed

The wreck of the Number 30 double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, one of four bombs set off by terrorists on July 7th 2005, which killed 52 and injured over 700 people
The Wall Street Bombing on 16th September 1920 immediately killed 30 people from the blast, with others dying later from their injuries and wounding 143, the cause of the bombing was never solved
destruction in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh after a bomb attack on 23rd July 2005, 88 people died as a result of the blast
The remains of a car destroyed by a car bomb detonated in front of a shopping mall in Sharm el Sheikh in 2005
The Lockerbie bombing on 21st December 1988 killed all 259 people on baord and 11 people in the town of Lockerbie. The Boeing 747 was destroyed en route from Heathrow to JFK Airport in New York when a bomb was detonated in it's forward cargo hold
At least 131 people were killed and some 400 injured on 11th March 2004 on simultaneous explosions on three trains in Madrid
At least 53 people including 10 foreigners, were killed when a bomb exploded in a popular nightclub on the Indonesian resort island of Bali on 13th October 2002
Lord Louis Mountbatten, his grandson Nicholas and two others were killed when an IRA bomb exploded on his fishing boat in Donegal Bay on 27th August 1979
Taj Mahal Palace & Tower Hotel burns following an armed siege between terrorists and police forces on November 29, 2008 in Mumbai, India. The attack killed around 100 people
King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters of the British Mandate of Palestine was bombed by Zionist terrorists of the Irgun group on 22nd July 1946 killing 91 and injuring 46 people
US truck bomb
Seven explosions ripped through commuter trains and stations during evening rush hour in India's financial capital Mumbai, killing at least 163 people in an attack the prime minister blamed on terrorists
Matt says: “All we see from the official records is some CCTV of two of them after getting an inter connecting flight. Why can’t they just show me the manifest of AA11?”

The 9/11 Commission prepared a report on the disasters and blames the hijackers.

However, Matt says the report’s authors were not given access to all the information and were not allowed to speak directly to those giving evidence about the hijackers.

He is particularly concerned about the wall of silence surrounding the collapse of building 7, a 47 storey structure by the twin towers which collapsed although it was not directly hit by any aircraft.

He said: “Just from looking at the footage it is obvious to many experts I have spoken to that this was a controlled demolition with explosives.

“The official line is that internal fires caused it to collapse.

“I have spoken to fire officers, police and experts and none of them believe the official story. We are not being told the truth.”

World trade centreGETTY
World Trade CentreGETTY
Matt is unhappy with the official version of what happened to his brother during 9/11
Matt insists he is not a conspiracy theorist, but says he is curious about other theories about what happened and supports a play which opens at the Etcetera Theatre in Camden, London on February 16.

Called I.S.I.S (an acronym for Intelligence. Surveillance. Infiltration. Subversion.) it tells the story of how a London group which challenges the 9/11 narrative is infiltrated by the security services.

Written by Peter Neathey, it shows the lengths to which shadowy government agencies will go to stop people challenging the official version of events.

Matt says: “The play raises some interesting questions and people should see it.

“The official narrative of 9/11 is a lie. I am going to reopen my brother’s inquest and expose the lies of government and the absence of evidence supporting the official narrative. I have to get justice for Geoff.

His inquest was held a few years ago and it was very brief. The commission’s findings were accepted, but they need to be challenged.”

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=A9Qbf-WqyHc]_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Geoff Campbell, 31, was one of 67 Britons killed in the New York 9/11 attacks
His brother refuses to accept the official line and insists there was a cover-up
Matt Campbell will protest outside BBC Broadcasting House on the anniversary
By SUE REID FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 01:14, 9 September 2017

Next Monday afternoon, Matt Campbell will stand outside BBC Broadcasting House in London’s Portland Place, protesting about the killing of his brother, Geoff, and 66 other Britons, in the 9/11 terror attack at the New York World Trade Centre.

After the horror on September 11, 2001, there was no trace of Geoff. The 31-year-old risk analyst had been attending a conference on the 106th floor in the North Tower, a short stroll from the Manhattan apartment where he lived with his American fiancée, Caroline.

At first, his family clung to the hope he was alive, until one year later fragments of a shoulder blade bearing Geoff’s DNA were found among Trade Centre rubble at a landfill site.

Matt began asking questions. He has not stopped since. He, and others who will be at the BBC protest, refuse to accept the official story about 9/11: that four U.S. airliners were hijacked by Islamist terror chief Osama Bin Laden’s pilots. Two were flown into New York’s famous Twin Towers, which collapsed.

Doubts continue to be cast on the official explanation for the 9/11 terror attacks in New York (pictured) +3
Doubts continue to be cast on the official explanation for the 9/11 terror attacks in New York (pictured)

A third rammed into the U.S. Defence Headquarters at the Pentagon in Washington DC. The last went down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and passengers, later portrayed in the Hollywood film United 93.

Seven hours later, a third tower at the World Trade Centre, WTC7, fell to the ground over seven seconds, even though no plane had hit it.

The red building, 100 yards from the 110-storey Twin Towers, was less than half their height at just 47 floors, and few people even know of its existence. It had already been evacuated after the planes had hit the main towers.

In total, 2,977 people died, provoking President Bush to mount the ‘War On Terror’ that led to the invasion of Iraq, with the UK in tow.

RAF man's heroic return to the skies: Heartwarming footage...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
Yet as Monday’s anniversary approaches, Matt, a former City worker who is married with three children and lives in Sussex, insists that 9/11 did not happen in the way we have been told and that there has been a huge official cover-up to disguise the truth.

‘There are so many questions that the Americans and the British Establishment refuse to answer,’ he says. ‘I believe that my brother and thousands of others were murdered on 9/11 and there has been a cover-up. We, as a family, are still overcoming this tragedy, but we will never stop seeking the truth.’

He is not alone in his quest. A survey in U.S. magazine Live Science last year revealed that most Americans (53 per cent) believe the U.S. Government has concealed — and continues to conceal — vital information about the 9/11 attacks. Crucially, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska concluded this week, after two years of forensic research, that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

Indeed, though the official story is that WTC7 was weakened by fires caused by debris from the attack, it’s the only steel skyscraper in the world ever to collapse purely as a result of a blaze.

Geoff Campbell (pictured with fiancee Caroline Burbank) was one of 67 Britons killed in the attack. His brother Matt refuses to believe the official 9/11 explanation +3
Geoff Campbell (pictured with fiancee Caroline Burbank) was one of 67 Britons killed in the attack. His brother Matt refuses to believe the official 9/11 explanation

And a new book by an academic who has become an authority on 9/11, Professor David Ray Griffin, says that to believe that this building fell to the ground without explosives being involved is asking the public to believe in ‘miracles’.

Griffin, a retired philosopher at Claremont School of Theology in California, adds in his bestseller Bush And Cheney: How They Ruined America And The World, about the ex-president and his vice-president Dick Cheney: ‘There is a growing consensus that 9/11 allowed the U.S. to adopt extreme, unwarranted policies. They include the War On Terror and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as first steps in taking control of the Middle East.’

He, and other 9/11 sceptics such as Matt, have asked if the attack was, in fact, a copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan during John F. Kennedy’s presidency to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow dictator Fidel Castro.

In other words, on that September morning in 2001, did the White House fail to stop — or even fabricate — an outrage against its own civilians so as to provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?

Although there have been countless conspiracy theories about 9/11, the idea that the U.S. Government connived in it still appears utterly implausible and has, of course, been denied by U.S. intelligence services and the White House.

Initially — like most people in America and Britain, including Matt Campbell — Professor Griffin dismissed any notion that the attacks were an inside job aimed at triggering the war on terror.

It was a year later that he changed his mind, when he was writing about American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic work.

This week a team of experts said that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7 (circled), adding further fuel to conspiracy theories +3
This week a team of experts said that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7 (circled), adding further fuel to conspiracy theories

As part of his research he had come across a ‘timeline’ of the day’s events based on newspaper and television accounts. It raised several anomalies that caused him to doubt the official version of events. And, however outlandish it seems, his argument bears consideration.

One of the most puzzling anomalies was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there would have been plenty of time to do so and it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack.

In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Then there were the irregular stock market dealings before the tragedy.

An extremely high volume of ‘put options’ — bets on the price of shares falling — were purchased for the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, the international financier that occupied 22 storeys of the World Trade Centre.

Even more remarkable was the volume of ‘put options’ traded on American and United Airlines, which operated the four aircraft hijacked by the terrorists.

On these two airlines, and only these, the level of share trade went up by 1,200 per cent in the three days before the catastrophe. As the shares dropped in response to 9/11 the value of these options multiplied a hundredfold. Someone, somewhere, made $10 million in profit.

But, of all the conundrums, the most perplexing is how the three World Trade Centre towers fell to the ground.

The official version is that the Twin Towers collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.

This explanation has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the U.S. intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and the UK.

However, sceptics say the science does not stand up. They argue that steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800f, and open fires of jet fuel — such as those in the Twin Towers inferno — cannot burn hotter than 1,700f.

Official reports state the steel in the third tower reached a maximum of 1,100f.

Professor Griffin and other sceptics believe the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. They claim their controversial theory is corroborated by first-hand testimony from firefighters at the scene.

In oral histories of 9/11 by New York Fire Department staff which have been made public, almost a quarter suggest they heard explosions going off before the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Of the South Tower, firefighter Richard Banaciski said: ‘There was just an explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way round like a belt . . . all those explosions.’

Colleague Kenneth Rogers heard them, too. He said: ‘There was an explosion in the South Tower. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . . . I figured it was a bomb because it looked like a synchronised kind of thing.

And Fire Captain Dennis Tardio recalled: ‘I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded from the top floor down, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can’t believe what I am seeing. The building is coming down.’

But a more extraordinary challenge to scientific reason would happen on the day of the attacks in respect of the third tower, WTC7, which contained the offices of the secret service, and then mayor Rudy Giuliani’s emergency command centre, fitted with bullet- and bomb-resistant windows as well as secure air and water supplies.

In 2008, a U.S. Government-ordered report by the prestigious National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded a six-year probe into the WTC7 attack.

Bystanders interviewed by U.S. television that day said there were ‘bang, bang, bang’ sounds before it fell down. Yet NIST insisted there was ‘no evidence’ of a controlled explosion.

The fall was provoked by fires on multiple levels. The heating of floor beams and girders had caused a critical support column to fall, initiating the fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

This week, eminent Alaska University engineers dismissed this explanation. Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, said: ‘Fire did not and could not have caused the failure of this building.’

Griffin adds: ‘We are led to believe that for the first time in the known universe, a steel-framed, high-rise building was brought down by fire without the aid of explosives or incendiaries.

‘More clearly miraculous was the precise way in which WTC7 collapsed [straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline] into its own footprint. This is the kind of free-fall implosion that can only be caused by a world-class demolition company.’

But there is another perplexing matter regarding this third building. It concerns the bizarre TV reports in the U.S., and the rest of the world, that it had collapsed when it was clearly still upright — announcements made 23 minutes before it had actually fallen down.

One piece of BBC World footage shows a studio anchor talking to news correspondent Jane Standley, who is standing in front of the clearly visible WTC7 tower.

The anchor says: ‘The 47-storey building, situated very close to the World Trade Centre, has also just collapsed. It seems that this was not the result of a new attack. It was because the building had been weakened during the morning attacks.’

Then, oddly, the link to Standley breaks up and is lost.

Of course, this may just be a mistake made on one of the most hectic news days ever. Certainly, the BBC seems to think so.

In a statement made in 2007, a spokesman said: ‘In the chaos and confusion, I am sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate, but at the time were based on the best information we had. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage, for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy.’

This response — and the question of why the BBC announced the fall of WTC7 before it actually happened — has enraged those fighting for the ‘truth’, such as Matt Campbell. They say a series of 9/11 documentaries put out by the BBC have not been impartial or scientifically accurate.

It is why he, and other Britons who disagree with the official version of 9/11, have chosen to make their protest outside BBC headquarters on Monday.

This unlikely rebel, a trained theoretical physicist, former IT expert in the City, and now a reflexologist, has refused to pay his BBC licence fee for the past four years.

He claims: ‘The BBC has presented information to the public that breaks its own editorial guidelines. In at least one documentary, it removed the sounds of huge explosions going off in WTC7 moments before its collapse.

‘I think my brother Geoff and many others were murdered in an event that conflicts with what we have been officially told.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum